CSNbbs

Strasburg already would be on full rest on Wednesday

(10-07-2019 09:05 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]Strasburg already would be on full rest on Wednesday

In that case there really shouldn't be much concern. They have 2 of the top 5 pitchers going in the next two games. They're in fine shape.

(10-07-2019 12:05 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]So Brookes- serious question for you...

if tomorrow's game gets rained out- do you go on Tuesday with Buehler and then Wednesday with Kershaw, or do you leave it with Hill?

I'd stick with Hill in game 4 on whichever day, maybe using Kershaw in relief, and start Buehler in game 5 (or game 1 of the LCS).

(10-07-2019 08:11 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2019 12:05 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]So Brookes- serious question for you...

if tomorrow's game gets rained out- do you go on Tuesday with Buehler and then Wednesday with Kershaw, or do you leave it with Hill?

Man, this is a tough one. I would obviously go with Buehler on full rest, but if he loses, I don't know that I can go with Kershaw. I might consider using an opener and then analyzing where I'm at after the third inning or so.

Regardless, there's plenty of intrigue left in this series. It seems like Martinez is trying his best to go the route of the 2001 Dbacks and ride his horses ot victory. Unfortunately, it didn't work with Corbin as the third horse. Let's see what Scherzer can do. A rain out would be a boon for the Nats, as it would put Strasburg on full rest (i think).

It's amazing that there would be a thought of having the Buehler/Kershaw option and not taking advantage of it- and not being considered outrageous.

*sigh*

Buehler is decent on the road but he has significantly better stats at home. ERA 2.86 vs 3.66; FIP 2.86 vs 3.15; WHIP 0.89 vs 1.20. I know sometimes Home/Road splits aren't always reliable but with Buehler, who is young and fiery, I tend to give them some credibility. I'd stick with Hill as opener + relievers. Even with Kelly's sketchy outing last night Dodgers relievers looking good so far: ERA 1.29; FIP 2.25; WHIP 0.93.

(10-07-2019 11:35 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote: [ -> ]*sigh*

Buehler is decent on the road but he has significantly better stats at home. ERA 2.86 vs 3.66; FIP 2.86 vs 3.15; WHIP 0.89 vs 1.20. I'd stick with Hill as opener + relievers. Even with Kelly's sketchy outing last night Dodgers relievers looking good so far: ERA 1.29; FIP 2.25; WHIP 0.93.

What would be interesting if there was rain out(and not looking as good right now for it being rained out)- would be if you used Hill as super opener and then out of the bullpen being Kershaw..... Kershaw would be on 3 days rest. Those 2 get you thru 6 and then bullpen for the close out....

Still can't believe that rather moronic baserunning play by Kendrick last night.

(10-07-2019 11:39 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2019 11:35 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote: [ -> ]*sigh*

Buehler is decent on the road but he has significantly better stats at home. ERA 2.86 vs 3.66; FIP 2.86 vs 3.15; WHIP 0.89 vs 1.20. I'd stick with Hill as opener + relievers. Even with Kelly's sketchy outing last night Dodgers relievers looking good so far: ERA 1.29; FIP 2.25; WHIP 0.93.

What would be interesting if there was rain out(and not looking as good right now for it being rained out)- would be if you used Hill as super opener and then out of the bullpen being Kershaw..... Kershaw would be on 3 days rest. Those 2 get you thru 6 and then bullpen for the close out....

Still can't believe that rather moronic baserunning play by Kendrick last night.

Somebody tweeted yesterday that he's a double agent. Seems like he's the Dodgers MVP so far.

(10-07-2019 11:50 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2019 11:39 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2019 11:35 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote: [ -> ]*sigh*

Buehler is decent on the road but he has significantly better stats at home. ERA 2.86 vs 3.66; FIP 2.86 vs 3.15; WHIP 0.89 vs 1.20. I'd stick with Hill as opener + relievers. Even with Kelly's sketchy outing last night Dodgers relievers looking good so far: ERA 1.29; FIP 2.25; WHIP 0.93.

What would be interesting if there was rain out(and not looking as good right now for it being rained out)- would be if you used Hill as super opener and then out of the bullpen being Kershaw..... Kershaw would be on 3 days rest. Those 2 get you thru 6 and then bullpen for the close out....

Still can't believe that rather moronic baserunning play by Kendrick last night.

Somebody tweeted yesterday that he's a double agent. Seems like he's the Dodgers MVP so far.

yeah. He doesn't have that gaffe last night and Nats have 1st and 2nd with 1 out and MAT up with a ph on deck(they used Parra in the 7th inning).

(10-07-2019 08:11 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like Martinez is trying his best to go the route of the 2001 Dbacks and ride his horses ot victory. Unfortunately, it didn't work with Corbin as the third horse. Let's see what Scherzer can do. A rain out would be a boon for the Nats, as it would put Strasburg on full rest (i think).

I include this tweet as a part of my response because it's the kind of horse **** analysis that drives me nuts (not to mention the ****** grammar). It's a Monday morning QB comment that doesn't give near enough explanation of the "sometimes". It's describing an incredibly risky approach that can easily backfire (as it did with Corbin yesterday) and also puts your starters through a gauntlet that has a high risk of biting you in the next round even if you do pull it off. Granted, getting to the next round is better than not getting there. My beef is with the way Boswell shines a light on the very hard to attain reward while glossing over the risk. Would the Nats have liked to start Scherzer last night?

(10-07-2019 12:07 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2019 08:11 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like Martinez is trying his best to go the route of the 2001 Dbacks and ride his horses ot victory. Unfortunately, it didn't work with Corbin as the third horse. Let's see what Scherzer can do. A rain out would be a boon for the Nats, as it would put Strasburg on full rest (i think).

I include this tweet as a part of my response because it's the kind of horse **** analysis that drives me nuts (not to mention the ****** grammar). It's a Monday morning QB comment that doesn't give near enough explanation of the "sometimes". It's describing an incredibly risky approach that can easily backfire (as it did with Corbin yesterday) and also puts your starters through a gauntlet that has a high risk of biting you in the next round even if you do pull it off. Granted, getting to the next round is better than not getting there. My beef is with the way Boswell shines a light on the very hard to attain reward while glossing over the risk. Would the Nats have liked to start Scherzer last night?

Being down 1-0- using Scherzer the way they did made sense in a best of 5. Guaranteed that Scherzer then would get a start in 4th game. Also meant that if they could steal game 3, Dodgers would have been in the extremely uncomfortable position of having to beat both Scherzer and Strasburg, with one of the games being started by Rich Hill(or being forced to bring Buehler back to start early).

It is crazy that 100 win teams are only .500 in the LDS. And it's because teams can do exactly what the Nats are doing.

Hill sucks, but start him Tuesday. Use bullpen as they normally would. Start Bueller Wednesday and have Kershaw ready as back up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(10-07-2019 12:17 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote: [ -> ]Hill sucks, but start him Tuesday. Use bullpen as they normally would. Start Bueller Wednesday and have Kershaw ready as back up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

it looks like will be tonight- the rain should hold off.....

Wednesday would be interesting.

(10-07-2019 12:14 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]It is crazy that 100 win teams are only .500 in the LDS. And it's because teams can do exactly what the Nats are doing.

But do the numbers support that? I mean, I get that it CAN happen but how many times have 100 win teams lost because opposing starters came in as relievers in 5 game series? How many times have starters actually helped vs give up runs? And how many times did the relief appearance eliminate the pitcher for a future (otherwise planned) start?

My impression is that LDS have less predictable outcomes because they are short series and all kinds of unpredictable things can happen when you reduce the number of repetitions. I think to have the Nats' staff of essentially 3 co-aces is pretty unique (90s Braves of course) and so there are probably very few teams who even have a chance of pulling this off.

(10-07-2019 12:27 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2019 12:14 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]It is crazy that 100 win teams are only .500 in the LDS. And it's because teams can do exactly what the Nats are doing.

But do the numbers support that? I mean, I get that it CAN happen but how many times have 100 win teams lost because opposing starters came in as relievers in 5 game series? How many times have starters actually helped vs give up runs? And how many times did the relief appearance eliminate the pitcher for a future (otherwise planned) start?

My impression is that LDS have less predictable outcomes because they are short series and all kinds of unpredictable things can happen when you reduce the number of repetitions. I think to have the Nats' staff of essentially 3 co-aces is pretty unique (90s Braves of course) and so there are probably very few teams who even have a chance of pulling this off.

I think in short series you can have top 2 guys pitch a lot, especially since they tacked on the 2nd travel day. You can have your game 1 starter come back in game 4, and then game 2 starter on full rest for game 5. You can have memorable relief stints- didn't Kershaw close out the Nats a few years ago?

I think it's insane to criticize Martinez for leaning on his 3 horses. He has by far the worst pen of any of the playoff teams. At the same time he has the best trio of SP. Why not lean on them? It's not like he's letting them throw 250 pitches in a weekend, like he's a Japanese teenager during Koshien. We're talking a few extra innings. In the playoffs, you have to use your best pitchers as often as possible.

(10-07-2019 12:44 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's insane to criticize Martinez for leaning on his 3 horses. He has by far the worst pen of any of the playoff teams. At the same time he has the best trio of SP. Why not lean on them? It's not like he's letting them throw 250 pitches in a weekend, like he's a Japanese teenager during Koshien. We're talking a few extra innings. In the playoffs, you have to use your best pitchers as often as possible.

yeah. Maybe he should have taken Corbin out in the 6th when Hernandez PH(but then again just looked and that was a 4-27 matchup for their careers).

(10-07-2019 12:33 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2019 12:27 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2019 12:14 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]It is crazy that 100 win teams are only .500 in the LDS. And it's because teams can do exactly what the Nats are doing.

But do the numbers support that? I mean, I get that it CAN happen but how many times have 100 win teams lost because opposing starters came in as relievers in 5 game series? How many times have starters actually helped vs give up runs? And how many times did the relief appearance eliminate the pitcher for a future (otherwise planned) start?

My impression is that LDS have less predictable outcomes because they are short series and all kinds of unpredictable things can happen when you reduce the number of repetitions. I think to have the Nats' staff of essentially 3 co-aces is pretty unique (90s Braves of course) and so there are probably very few teams who even have a chance of pulling this off.

I think in short series you can have top 2 guys pitch a lot, especially since they tacked on the 2nd travel day. You can have your game 1 starter come back in game 4, and then game 2 starter on full rest for game 5. You can have memorable relief stints- didn't Kershaw close out the Nats a few years ago?

Yep - 2016. It's his only 5 game appearance as a reliever I think. Relieved vs Astros in game 7 of 2017 WS and in Game 7 vs MIL in last year's NLCS. Again, I get that it CAN be done - I'm just wondering if it's done enough to make it statistically relevant (e.g. is it really a significant reason why 100 win teams are .500 in the LDS?)

(10-07-2019 12:44 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's insane to criticize Martinez for leaning on his 3 horses. He has by far the worst pen of any of the playoff teams. At the same time he has the best trio of SP. Why not lean on them? It's not like he's letting them throw 250 pitches in a weekend, like he's a Japanese teenager during Koshien. We're talking a few extra innings. In the playoffs, you have to use your best pitchers as often as possible.

I haven't seen any criticisms of his approach and I'm certainly not doing so. My beef was with Boswell's treatment of the rare reward while not really addressing the massive risk. Nats don't really have a choice with their pen but there are loads of potential downsides when you lean on starters this way.

(10-07-2019 01:06 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2019 12:33 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2019 12:27 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2019 12:14 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]It is crazy that 100 win teams are only .500 in the LDS. And it's because teams can do exactly what the Nats are doing.

But do the numbers support that? I mean, I get that it CAN happen but how many times have 100 win teams lost because opposing starters came in as relievers in 5 game series? How many times have starters actually helped vs give up runs? And how many times did the relief appearance eliminate the pitcher for a future (otherwise planned) start?

My impression is that LDS have less predictable outcomes because they are short series and all kinds of unpredictable things can happen when you reduce the number of repetitions. I think to have the Nats' staff of essentially 3 co-aces is pretty unique (90s Braves of course) and so there are probably very few teams who even have a chance of pulling this off.

I think in short series you can have top 2 guys pitch a lot, especially since they tacked on the 2nd travel day. You can have your game 1 starter come back in game 4, and then game 2 starter on full rest for game 5. You can have memorable relief stints- didn't Kershaw close out the Nats a few years ago?

Yep - 2016. It's his only 5 game appearance as a reliever I think. Relieved vs Astros in game 7 of 2017 WS and in Game 7 vs MIL in last year's NLCS. Again, I get that it CAN be done - I'm just wondering if it's done enough to make it statistically relevant (e.g. is it really a significant reason why 100 win teams are .500 in the LDS?)

what I would be curious to see is what the record of those 100 win losing teams opponents were.... There are some like in 2015 where the 100 win Cards played 97 win Cubs. Not a big upset.

Also there have been a few times recently where 100 win teams played each other. Like last year Red Sox/Yankees. This year Yankees/Twins.

(10-07-2019 01:11 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-07-2019 12:44 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's insane to criticize Martinez for leaning on his 3 horses. He has by far the worst pen of any of the playoff teams. At the same time he has the best trio of SP. Why not lean on them? It's not like he's letting them throw 250 pitches in a weekend, like he's a Japanese teenager during Koshien. We're talking a few extra innings. In the playoffs, you have to use your best pitchers as often as possible.

I haven't seen any criticisms of his approach and I'm certainly not doing so. My beef was with Boswell's treatment of the rare reward while not really addressing the massive risk. Nats don't really have a choice with their pen but there are loads of potential downsides when you lean on starters this way.

His tweet was so poorly written, I could barely follow it.